### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 30272
FE LLO SEA AC K ER SO N , e ta l ; G I LB ER T AC K ER SO N ; CA TH Y A D AM S; F R E D E R IC KA D A M S ; J E A N A D D IS O N ; E T A L ., P l ai n t i f fs–A pp el l an t s, v. B E A N D R E D G IN G L L C ; B E A N D R E D G IN G C O R P O R A T IO N , fo r m e r ly kno w n a s Eagl e D r e dg i ng Cor po r at i o n, f o r m e r l y kno w n a s Fal c o n Dre dg i ng Co r p o r a t i o n ; C
. F
. B EA N L L C; C
. F
. B EA N C OR P OR AT I ON, f o r me r l y k n o wn a s C. F. Be a n I n c o r p o r a t e d ; BEA N H ORI Z ON CORPORAT I ON; BEA N HORI Z ON L L C; B EA N S T UYVE S ANT L L C; S T UYVE S ANT DR ED GI NG CO M P ANY ; S T UYVE S ANT DR ED GI NG I NCO RP OR AT ED ; S T UYVE S ANT D R E D G IN G C O M P A N YL L C ; R O YA L B O S KA L IS W E S T M IN S T E R N .V .; G U LF C O AST TRA I LI N G CO M PA N Y; TLJI C LL C; T. L. J AM ES & CO M P ANYI NCO RP OR AT ED ; T
. L
. J AMES MARI NE I NCO RP OR AT ED ; T .L . J A M E S M A R IN E L L C ; H A M C O N S T R U C T IO N O V E R S E A S N .V .; GREAT L AKES DREDGE & DOCK COM PA NY; GREAT L AKES DREDGE & DOCK COM PA NY L LC OF LOUI S I ANA; GREAT L AKES DREDGE & DOCK CORPORA TI ON OF DEL AW ARE; NATC O DREDGI NG LI M I TE D P AR T NER S HI P ; GR EA T L AK ES T RA I L I NG C OMPA NY ; W EE KS MARI NE I NC. ; MI KE HOOK S I NC. ; L UHR B RO T HER S I NCO RP OR AT ED ; MANS ON CO N STR U CT I O N CO
. , a l s o kno w n a s M ans o n Cons t r uc t i o n & Engi ne e r i ng Co m p a n y ; M ANSON GULF L LC ; P I NE BL UFF S AND AND GRAVEL COM PA NY; KI NG FI S HER M ARI NE S ERVI CE I NC. ; KI NG FI S HER M ARI NE S ERVI CE L P; KFMSGP LL C, D efen da n t s–A pp el l ees . United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November

25, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 07- 30272

2 N o. 07- 30274
PH I LLI P RE ED , o n b e hal f o f hi m s e l f a nd a l lo t he r s s i m i l ar l y s i t uat e d, P l a i n ti ff

–A p p ell a n t,

v. UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA; BEA N DREDGI NG LL C; BEA N D RE D G I N G CO RP O RA TI O N , f o r m e r l y kno w n a s Eagl e D r e dg i ng Co r p o r a t i o n , f

o r m e r l y k n o wn a s F a l c o n Dr e d g i n gCo r p o r a t i o n ; C. F. BEA N L L C; C
. F
. B EA N C OR P OR AT I ON, a g e n tC
. F
. B e a n I n c . ; B EA N HOR I Z ON CORP ORAT I ON; BEA N H ORI Z ON LL C; BEA N ST UYVES ANT L LC ; S T U YV E S A N T D R E D G IN G C O M P A N Y ; S T U YV E S A N T D R E D G IN G IN C .; S T U YV E S A N T D R E D G IN G C O M P A N YL L C ; R O YA L B O S KA L IS W ES TM I NST ER N. V. ; GULF COAS T TR AI LI NG COM PA NY; T LJ I C L LC ; T .L . J A M E S & C O M P A N YIN C .; H A M C O N S T R U C T IO N O V E R S E A S N .V .; GREAT L AKES DREDGE & DOCK COM PA NY; GREAT L AKES DREDGE & DOCK COM PA NY L LC OF LOUI S I ANA; GREAT L AKES DREDGE & DOCK CORPORA TI ON OF DEL AW ARE; NATC O DREDGI NG LI M I TE D P AR T NER S HI P ; GR EA T L AK ES T RA I L I NG C OMPA NY ; W EE KS MARI NE I NC. ; MI KE HOOK S I NC. ; L UHR B RO T HER S I NC. ; MANS ON CO N STR U CT I O N CO
. , a l s o kno w n a s M ans o n Cons t r uc t i o n & Engi ne e r i ng Co
. ; P I NE BL UF F S AND & G RAVE L C OMPA NY ; KI NG F I S HER MARI NE S ERVI CE I NC. ; KI NG FI S HER M ARI NE S ERVI CE L P; KFMSGP LL C, D efen da n t s–A pp el l ees.N o. 07- 30272

3 N o. 07- 30326
I N R E: KA T RI NA CA NAL B RE AC HES L I T I GA T I ON

P HI L L I P R EE D, O n b e hal f o f hi m s e l f a nd a l lo t he r s s i m i l ar l y s i t uat e d, Pl ai nt i f f –Appe l l ant

v. G U L F C O A S T T R A IL IN G C O M P A N Y ; T .L . J A M E S A N D C O M P A N YIN C .; GR E A T L A KE S D R E DG E & DO C K C OMP A NY ; MI KE HO OK S I NC
. ; L UHR BR OT HER S I NC. ; MANS ON C ONS T RUC T I ON C O. , al so kn ow n as M an son Co n s t r u c t i o n & En g i n e e r i n gCo
. ; P I NE BL UFF S AND & GRAVEL CO M PAN Y; KI N G FI SHE R M ARI N E SERVI CE LP, D efen da n t s–A pp el l ees.

I n t h e M a t t e ro f

t h e Co m p l a i n to f

GREAT L AKES DREDGE & DOCK C O M P A N Y , A s ow n er of t h e D redges C al i f

orni a, M an h att an I sl an d, P ad re Is l an d, an d A l aska , an d as ow n er pro hac vi ce of t h e D redge T exas, P et i t i on er–A pp el l ee.
I n t he M at t e ro f

t he Com pl ai nto f

M I K E H O O K S I N C. , As o w ne ro f t he Dr e d g e Mi s s o u r iH, P et i t i on er–A pp el l ee.
I n t h e M a t t e ro f

t h e Co m p l a i n to f

T
. L. J AM ES AND COM PA NY I NC. , As ow n er of

t h e dredges T om Jam es and G eorge D
. W i l l i am s I I pray i n g f or exo ner at i on f

r om orl i m i t at i on o f

l i abi l i t y,N o. 07- 30272

4 P et i t i on er–A pp el l ee.
I n R e : I n t h e Ma t t e ro f t h e C o mp l a i n to f

GUL F C OA S T T RA I L I NG C O M PA N Y , ALoui si ana Part ner shi p, as ow nerof t he dr edge O uachi t a, pra yi ng f

orex oner at i on f

r om orl i m i t at i on o f

l i abi l i t y, P et i t i on er–A pp el l ee.
I n Re : I n t h e M a t t e ro f t h e Co m p l a i n to f

M ANSON CONST RUCTI ON CO. , As ow n er and operatorof t h e H opp er D redges N ew port an d B ayp ort , f or exo ner at i on f

r om orl i m i t at i on o f

l i abi l i t y, P et i t i on er–A pp el l ee.
I n R e : I n t h e Ma t t e ro f t h e C o mp l a i n to f

L UHR BROT HERS IN C
. , A s ow n er of t he Spud B ar ge L- 1101, Spud B ar ge L- 1103 and M /V M i c haelAand as ow n er Pro H ac V i ce of M /V C h arl i e B prayi n g f or exonerati on f

rom or l i m i tati on of l i a b i l i ty
I n t h e M a t t e ro f

t h e Co m p l a i n to f

KI NG FI S HER M ARI NE S ERVI CE L P, As ow n er of

t h e D redges L eon ard M
. F i sher an d E veret tF i sher,

P et i t i on er–A pp el l ee.
I n Re : I n t h e M a t t e ro f t h e Co m p l a i n to f

P I NE BL UFF S AND & GRAVEL C O M P A N Y , A s ow n er and operatorof dredge M ari on prayi n g f or exonerati on f r om orl i m i t at i on o f

l i abi l i t y, P et i t i on er–A pp el l ee.
In R e: I n t h e M att er of t h e C om pl ai n tof

W E E K S M A R IN E I N C
. , A s ow n er of t he D r edge s B E Li ndh ol m , G eo r ge D
. W i l l i am s, W ee ks 262 and BT 208, P et i t i on er–A pp el l ee.N o. 07- 30272

5 N o. 07- 30495
I N R E: KA T RI NA CA NAL B RE AC HES L I T I GA T I ON
FE LLO SEA AC K ER SO N ; G I LB ER T AC K ER SO N ; CA TH Y A D AM S; F R E D E R IC KA D A M S ; J E A N A D D IS O N ; E T A L ., P l ai n t i f fs–A pp el l an t s, v. B E A N D R E D G IN G L L C ; B E A N D R E D G IN G C O R P O R A T IO N , fo r m e r ly k n o wn a s E a g l e Dr e d g i n gC o r p o r a t i o n , B EA N DR ED GI NG C OR P OR AT I ON, f o r m e r l y k no wn a s Fa l c o n Dr e d g i ngCo r p o r a t i o n; C. F. BEAN LLC; C. F. BE AN CO RP OR AT I ON, f o r me r l y k n o wn a s C
. F
. B e a n I n c . ; B EA N HOR I Z ON CORP ORAT I ON; BEA N H ORI Z ON LL C; BEA N ST UYVES ANT L LC ; S T U YV E S A N T D R E D G IN G C O M P A N Y ; S T U YV E S A N T D R E D G IN G IN C .; S T U YV E S A N T D R E D G IN G C O M P A N YL L C ; R O YA L B O S KA L IS W ES TM I NST ER N. V. ; GULF COAS T TR AI LI NG COM PA NY; T LJ I C L LC ; T. L. J AM ES & COM PA NY I NC. ; T
. L. J AM ES M ARI NE I NC. ; T
. L. J AM ES M ARI NE LL C; HAM CONST RUCTI ON OVERS EAS N. V. ; GREAT L AKES DREDGE & DOCK COM PA NY; GREAT L AKES DREDGE & DOCK COM PA NY L LC OF LOUI S I ANA; GREAT L AKES DREDGE & DOCK CORP ORAT I ON OF DEL AW ARE; NATC O DREDGI NG LI M I TE D P AR T NER S HI P ; GR EA T L AK ES T RA I L I NG C OMPA NY ; W EE KS MARI NE I NC. ; MI KE HOOK S I NC. ; L UHR B RO T HER S I NC. ; MANS ON CO N STR U CT I O N CO
. , a l s o kno w n a s M ans o n Cons t r uc t i o n & Engi ne e r i ng Co
. ; M ANSON GULF L LC ; P I NE BL UFF S AND AND GRAVEL COM PA NY; KI NG F I S HER MARI NE S ER VI CE I NC. ; KI NG F I S HER MARI NE S ERVI CE L P; KFMSGP LL C, D efen da n t s–A pp el l ees.
I n Re : I n t h e M a t t e ro f t h e Co m p l a i n to f

GREAT L AKES DREDGE & DOCK C O M P A N Y , A s ow n er of t h e dredges C al i f

orni a, M an h att an I sl an d, P ad re Is l an d, an d A l aska , an d as ow n er pro hac vi ce of t h e D redge T exas f

or E xoner at i on f

r om orLi m i t at i on o f Li abi l i t y,N o. 07- 30272

6 ________________________________________ G R E A T L A K E S D R E D G E & D O C KC O M P A N Y , A s ow n er of t h e dredges C al i f orni a, M an h att an I sl an d, P ad re I sl an d, an d A l aska , an d as ow n er pro h ac vi ce of

t h e D redge T exas,

P et i t i on er–A pp el l ee.
I n Re: I n t he M at t e ro f t he Com pl ai nto f

M I K E H O O K S I N C. , a s o w ne ro f t he D r edge M i ss our iH f orE xoner at i on f

r om orLi m i t at i on o f Li abi l i t y,

________________________________________ MI KE HO OK S I NC
. , a s o wn e ro f t h e D r e d g e Mi s s o u r iH, P et i t i on er–A pp el l ee.
I n R e: I n M at t erof

t he C om pl ai nt of

T. L. JA M E S & C O M PA N Y , I N C
. , as ow n er of

t h e dredges T om Jam es and G eorge D
. W i l l i am s I I, prayi n g f or exo ner at i on f

r om orl i m i t at i on o f

l i abi l i t y,

________________________________________ T. L. J AM ES & CO M PA N Y I N C. , a s o w ne ro f t he dr e dg e s To m J am e s a nd G eo rg e D
. W i l l i a m s II, P et i t i on er–A pp el l ee.
I n R e : I n t h e Ma t t e ro f t h e C o mp l a i n to f

GUL F C OA S T T RA I L I NG C O M PA N Y , a Loui si ana Part ner shi p, as ow nerof t he dr edge O uachi t a; T L JIC L L C , a partner t h erei n , as ow n er of t h e dredge O u ach i t a, prayi n g f or exo ner at i on f

r om orl i m i t at i on o f

l i abi l i t y,

________________________________________ G U L F C O A S T T R A ILIN G C O M P A N Y , a L ou i si an a P art n ershi p, as ow n er of t he dr edge O uachi t a; TL JI C LL C , a par t nert her ei n, as ow nerof t he dr edge O uachi t a,N o. 07- 30272

7 P et i t i on ers–A pp el l ees.
I n R e: I n t he M at t erof t he C om pl ai nt of

M A N SO N C O N ST R U C TIO N C O
. , as ow n er and operatorof t h e H opp er D redges N ew port an d B ayp ort , f or exo ner at i on f

r om orl i m i t at i on o f

l i abi l i t y,

__________________________________________ M A N S O N C O N S T R U C T IO N C O
. , as ow n er and operatorof t h e H opp er D red ge s N ew p ort an d B a yp ort, P et i t i on er–A pp el l ee.
In R e: I n t h e M att er of t h e C om pl ai n tof

L U H R B R O T H E R S I N C
. , as ow n er of t he Spud B ar ge L- 1101, Spud B ar ge L- 1103, and M /V M i c haelAand as ow n er pro hac vi ce of M /V C h arl i e B prayi n g f or exonerati on f

rom or l i m i t at i on o f

l i abi l i t y,

__________________________________________ LUH R BRO TH ERS I N C. , a s o wne ro f Sp ud Ba r g e L- 1 1 0 1 , Sp ud Ba r g e L1 1 0 3 , a n d M /V M i c h a e lA a n d a s o wn e rp r o h a c v i c e o f M /V Ch a r l i e B, P et i t i on er–A pp el l ee.
I n Re : I n t h e M a t t e ro f t h e Co m p l a i n to f

KI NG FI S HER M ARI NE S ERVI CE L P , as ow n er of

t h e dredges L eon ard M
. F i sher an d E veret tF i sher f or exo ner at i on f

r om orl i m i t at i on o f

l i abi l i t y,

__________________________________________ K I N G F I S H E R MA R I N E S E R V I C E L P , a s o w n e ro f t h e d r e d g e s L e o n a r d M. F i sher an d E veret tF i sher, P et i t i on er–A pp el l ee.N o. 07- 30272

8 I n Re : I n t h e M a t t e ro f t h e Co m p l a i n to f

P I NE BL UFF S AND & GRAVEL C O M P A N Y , as ow n er and operatorof dredge M ari on prayi n g f or exonerati on f r om orl i m i t at i on o f

l i abi l i t y,

___________________________________________ PIN E B LU FF SA N D & G R AV E L C O
. , as ow nerand ope r at orof dr edge M ar i o n, P et i t i on er–A pp el l ee.
In R e: I n t h e M att er of t h e C om pl ai n tof

W E E K S M A R IN E I N C
. , as ow n er of t h e dredges B
. E
. L i n dh ol m , G eorge D
. W i l l i am s, W eeks 26 2, an d B T 208 f or exo ner at i on f

r om orl i m i t at i on o f

l i abi l i t y,

____________________________________________ W EE KS MARI NE I NC. , a s o wn e ro f t h e d r e d g e s B
. E. L i n d h o l m, Ge o r g e D. W i l l i am s, W ee ks 262 and BT 208, P et i t i on er–A pp el l ee.

A p p ea l s f

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f ort he E as t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana
B ef ore R E AV L E Y , ST E W A R T , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es . P R ISC ILL AR
. O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg e: A pp el l an t s s ue d t he U n i t ed S t ates an d thi rt y- t w o defen da n t s w h o dredged t he M i s s i s s i pp i R i ve rG ul f O ut l e tt o r e c o ve rda m ag e s s us t ai ne d d ur i ng H u rri can e K atr i n a. T h e d i st ri ctcou rtd i sm i ssed the cl ai m s ag ai n stthe d redgers be c aus e i tde t e r m i ne d t hatt he def e nda nt s ac t e d p ur s uantt o c o nt r ac t s w i t h t he U ni t e d St at e s g o ve r nm e ntund e ra ut ho r i t y gr ant e d b y an ac to f Cong r e s s . The ap pel l an t s argue that t h e di st ri ctcourti m properl y: ( 1) di sm i ssed t h ei r c l ai m s;N o. 07- 30272

9 (2) refu sed to all ow th em to a m en d th eir co m p l a i n t; (3) refu sed to all ow the m to cond u ct di scovery; an d ( 4) en t ered j u dg m en ti n favor of t h ose defen da n t s w h ose act i on s had b e en st ayed af t er t h ey f

i l ed p et i t i on s un der t h e L i m i t ati on of L i a b i l i t y A c t . We a f f i r m. I I n 2 00 6, Phi l i p Re e d f i l ed a c l as s a c t i o n a ga i ns tt he U ni t e d St at e s a nd t hi r t y- t w o dr e dg i ng c o m pa ni e s ( Cont r ac t o rD e fe nda nt s ) t o re c o ve rda m ag e s t he c l as s suf

fer ed as a r es ul t of H urr i c ane K at r i na. R ee d al so sou gh t i nj u nct i ve rel i ef t o preven tf

u t u re dredgi n g act i vi t i es. Several m on t h s l ater , F el l osea A ckerson f

i l ed a sub st an t i vel y i den t i cal com pl ai n t on beh al f of 1, 6 0 0 n a m ed pl ai n t i f fs agai n st th e sa m e th irty -tw o C o n tra cto r D e fen d a n ts. Th e U n i t ed S t ates w as not a na m ed d efen da n t in A ckerson’ s c om pl ai n t . Th e di st ri ctcourt consol i da t ed the act i on s. R eed an d A ckerson ( P l ai n t i f fs) al l eged t h at t h e C on t ract or D e fen d a n t s’ dr e dg i ng ac t i vi t i e s c aus e d e nvi r o nm e nt alda m ag e t o pr o t e c t i ve w e t l and s i n t he M i s s i s s i ppiRi ve rG ul f O ut l et (M R G O )
. The Pl ai nt i f fs a l s o a l l e ge d t hatt he M RG O pr oj e c tc aus e d a n a m pl i f i c at i o n o f

t he s t o r m s ur ge i n t he N e w O r l e ans r e gi o n du r i ng H ur r i c ane K at r i na, und e r m i ni ng t he l e ve e s and f l o o d wal l s a l o ng t h e M R G O an d the Indu st ri alC an alt h at breached an d f l ooded St. B erna rd Par i s h a nd Or l e ans Par i s h. The P l ai n t i f fs a s s e r t e d c l ai m s a ga i ns tt he C on tractor D efen d a n ts f or n eg l i ge n ce, b rea ch of i m p l i ed w a rra n ty, con cea l m en t, an d vi ol ati on of

env i ronm en t al

- protec t i on l aw s an d soug h ta m yri ad of dam ages an d an i nj u n ct i on t o preven tf u t u re dredgi n g act i vi t i es. T h e U n i t ed S t ates f

i l ed a m ot i on t o di sm i ss pu rsuan tt o F ederal R u l e of C i vi lP rocedure 12(b) ( 1) , cl ai m i n g t h e courtl acked subj ectm att er j u ri sdi ct i on b eca u se R ee d h a d n ot f i l ed an ad m i n i strative cl a i m a s req u i red b y th e A d m i ra l tyN o. 07- 30272

46U.S.C . § 301 01. 1 Id
. § 305 11. 2 Inre Por t Arth ur Towing C o. , 4 2 F .3 d 3 1 2 , 3 1 5( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 5). 3 3 0 9U .S
. 1 8( 1 9 4 0). 4 10 Ext e ns i o n Ac t . The di s t r i c tc o ur tg r ant e d t h e Go v e r n m e nt ’ s 1 2(b) ( 1) m o t i o n a nd 1 di s m i s s e d t he c l ai m s a ga i ns tt he U ni t e d St at e s . Thi s di s m i s s ali s no ta ti s s ue o n a p p e a l. T h e C o n tr a c to rD e fe n d a n ts a ls o file d a m o tio n to d is m is s u n d e rR u le 1 2 (b )(1) a n d R u le 1 2 (c). W h i l e t h e C on t ract or D efen da n t s’ m ot i on w as pen di n g bef ore t h e di st ri ct court, som e of

t h e C on t ract or D efen da n t s ( L i m i t ati on D ef en da n t s) f

i l ed
com pl ai n t s u n d e r th e L i m i t ati on of L i abil i t y A ct , w h i ch al l ow s a shi pow n er 2 fac i ng po t e nt i al l i ab i l i t y f o r a m ar i t i m e ac c i de nt t o l i m i t hi s l i ab i l i t y t o t he v al ue o f hi s v e s s e la nd c ar go a nd a ut o m at i c al l y s t ay s a l lo t he rs ui t s a ga i ns tt he shi pow ner so t hat al l c l ai m s w i l l be l i t i gat ed i n t he l i m i t at i on pr oceedi ng. 3 S everalC on t ract or D efen da n t s ( B ean D efen da n t s) di d n otf i l e l i m i t at i o n a c t i on s. Th e l i m i t at i on ac t i ons w er e t r ansf er r ed t o t he j udge pr es i di ng ove rthe or i gi nal Ree d a nd Ac ke r s o n c o m pl ai nt s , w he r e t he y w e r e c o ns o l i da t e d. T h e P la in tiffs file d a m o tio n to s ta y th e lim ita tio n a c tio n s a n d a llo w th e ir cl ai m s agai n stal lof

t h e C on t ract or D efen da n t s t o conti n u e. Th e di st ri ctcourt he l d a he ar i ng o n t he Cont r act o rD e f e nda nt s ’m o t i o n t o di s m i s s a nd t he Pl ai nt i f fs ’m o t i o n t o s t ayt he l i m i t at i o n ac t i o ns . Bec aus e t he s t ay s pr e ve nt e d t he c o ur tf r o m ho l di ng a he ar i ng w i t h r e s pe ct to t he Li m i t at i o n Defe nda nt s , t he
a cti on pr oce ed ed on l y as to th e B ea n D efen d a n ts, bu t t h e L i m i tati on D efen d a n ts pa rt i ci pa t ed as am i cus curi ae. T h e courtgran t ed the C on t ra cto r D efen da n t s’m ot i on t o di sm i ss u n der R ul e s 1 2 (b ) ( 1 ) a nd 1 2 ( c ) , c o nc l ud i ng t ha t t he Co nt r a c t o r Def e nd ant s had govern m en t
- contract or i m m u n i t y u n der Y earsley v. W
. A
. R oss C on st ruct i on Co. 4N o. 07- 30272

4 8 7U .S
. 5 0 0( 1 9 8 8). 5 Doe v. MySpace, I

nc. , 5 2 8F .3 d 4 1 3 , 4 1 8( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 8). 6 Yearsley , 30 9 U .S. at19 -20. 7 11 and Boy l e v . Uni t e d Te c hno l ogi e s Cor p. T h e courtden i ed the P l ai n t i f fs’request 5 t o c o nduc t di s c o ve r y t o de t e r m i ne w he t he r t he Cont r ac t o r D e fe nda nt s ha d d o ne a n y th in gto p la ce th e m ou tsid e of Y earsley ’ s p rotection , ca l l i n g t h e requ est a “f i sh i n g e xp ed i ti on . ” T h e cou rt also de n i ed th e P la i n ti ffs’req u est for l ea ve to a m en d the i r com p l a i n ts as “f u ti l e.” T h e d i stri ct cou rt en tered sep a ra te j u dg m en t s agai n stR eed an d A ckerson. T h e court al so en t ered a separate or der i n each case den yi n g as m oott h e P l ai n t i f fs’m ot i on t o st ay the l i m i t ati on proceedi n gs. The Pl ai nt i f

fs a ppe al e d t he s e r ul i ngs , a nd t he ap pe al s w e r e c o ns o l i da t e d. T h e P l ai n t i f

fs c l ai m t h e di st ri ctcourterr ed in gran t i n g t h e C on t ract or D efen da n t s’m ot i on f or j u dg m en ton the p lea d in gs, den yi n g t h ei r r equ estf or di s c o ve r y, de nyi ng t he i r m o t i o n t o a m e nd, a nd d e nyi ng t he i rm o t i o n t o s t ayt he l i m i t ati on proceedi n gs. II W e revi ew a gran tof j u dg m en ton the p l ead i n gs un der R u l e 12(c ) de n ovo. 6 W e a gr e e w i t h the di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s r ul i ng t hatb as e d o n t he pl e ad i ngs , t he C on t ract or D efen da n t s are en t i t l ed to govern m en t
- contract or i m m u n i t y u n der Y earsley . I n Y earsley , t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t c o n s id e r e d w h e th e ra co n tr a c to rth a t b u ilt di ke s i n t he M i s s o ur i Ri ve r pur s uant t o a c o nt r ac tw i t h t he fe de r alg o ve r nm e nt c o ul d b e he l d l i ab l e f o rda m ag e c aus e d b y t he c o ns t r uc t i o n o f t he di ke s . The

7
c o n tr a c t w a s p a r t o f a fe d e r a l p r o je c t a u th o r iz e d b y a n a c t o f C o n g r e s s , a n d it
w as und i s put e d t hatt he fe de r alg o ve r nm e nta ut ho r i z e d a nd di re c t e d t heN o. 07- 30272

Id
. 8 Id
. at20–21
. 9 Id
. at21
. 10 7 7 0F .2 d 5 5 6( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 8 5). 11 I d
. at 564
. 12 I d
. (e mp h a si s a dd ed). 13 12 proj ect . Th e C ou rtconcl u ded t h at t h e contr act or c ou l d n otbe held l i able,

8 hol di ng t hat w hen “ aut hor i t y t o car r y out t he pr oj ec tw as val i dl y c onfer r ed, t hat i s , i f w hatw as done w as w i t hi n t he c o ns t i t ut i o nalpo w e ro f Cong r e s s , t he r e i s no l i abil i t y on t h e part of t h e contr act or f

or e x e cu t i n g i t s w i l l
. ” Th e C ou rtal so 9
n ot ed that “ [ w ] h ere an ag en tor of f i cer of the G overnm en tp u rport i n g t o acton i t s b e hal f

ha s b e e n he l d t o b e l i ab l e f o rhi s c o nduc tc aus i ng i nj ur y t o a no t he r , t he groun d of

l i abil i t y h as been f

ou n d to be ei t h er t h at he exceeded hi s authori t y or th a t it w a s n o t v a lid ly co n fe r r e d .” 10 Th e Pl ai nt i f

fs c ont end t hat i nvoki ng Y earsley requ i r e s t he g o ve r nm e nt contract or t o show t h at an agen cy rel ati on shi p exi st ed bet w een t h e co n tract or a n d th e g o v e r n m e n t, a n d th e y a r g u e t h a t in t h is c a s e a n a g e n c y re la tio n s h ip is
no te vi de nto n t he fac e of t he pl e ad i ngs . To s upp o r tt he i ra r gum e nt , t he Pl ai nt i f fs r e l y o n l ang uag e f r o m t hi s c o ur t ’ s de c i s i o n i n Bynum v . FM C C o r p. , 11
w h i ch st ates t h at “ i t i s t h e l aw at l east i n t h i s C i rcui tt h at t h e contr act or m u st be a n a ge nto f

t he go ve r nm e ntb e f

o r e i nvo ki ng i t s i m m uni t y. ” Thi s s t at e m e nt 12 i s not as def

i n i t i ve , nor bi n di n g, as t h e P l ai n t i f fs s u ggest. Th e By n u m court a ck n ow l ed ge d tha t Y earsley o nl y c o nt ai ns a n “ app ar e ntr e qui r em en t t hatt he
c ont r ac t or pos se ss an ac t ual agenc y r el at i ons hi p w i t h t he gov er nm ent ” and t hat “fe d e r a l c o u r ts ce r ta in ly h a v e n o t a lw a y s re q u ir e d s u c h a re la tio n s h ip .” 13 A d d i ti on a l l y, t h i s statem en t i s d i cta, a n d w e h a ve n ev er h eld th a t Y earsleyN o. 07- 30272

I d
. at 560
. 14 I d
. at 574
. 15 SeeBreenv . Tex. A &M U n iv
. , 4 8 5F .3 d 3 2 5 , 3 3 6( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 7). 164 1 8F .2 d 1 0 1 0( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 6 9). 17 Byn um , 770F .2d at 5 64 & n .11. 18 Whitaker , 41 8 F .2d at 1 012 , 10 14-1 5, 1 018
. 19 Id
. at 1014 (cit ing Powell v. U.S. C art ridge C

o. , 3 3 9U .S
. 4 9 7( 1 9 5 0))
. 20 13 requ ires a com m o n- lawagen cy relation ship betw eenth e governm en tan d a con tractor. Th e l anguage r egar di ng agenc y on w hi c h t he pl ai nt i f fs r el y appe ar s i n an i n t rodu ct ory sec t i on of t h e By n u m opi n i on en t i t l ed “ L egal B ackg roun d, ” w h i ch p r o v id e d “a b r ie f o v e r v ie w . . . o f t h e [ m o d e r n g o v e r n m e n tc o n t r a c t o r ] d e fe n s e ’s hi s t o r i c ana l o gue s and t he r e as o ns pr o vi de d b y fe de r ala nd s t at e c o ur t s f o rt he adopt i on o f

t he m ode r n defens e. ” Af t erc onc l udi ng i ts d i sc uss i on o f t he l egal 14 bac kgr ound, t he c our ts etf or t h a f

ede r alc om m on- l aw def ens e f orm i l i t ar yequi pm entm anufac t ure r s, w i t hout di sc uss i ng, appl yi ng, orc i t i ng Y earsley . 15 Th er ef or e, t he c our t ’ s st at em ent s r egar di ng Y earsley w ere u n n ece ss a r y t o it s hol di ng and c ons t i t ut e no nbi ndi ng di c t a. 16 The c o ur t ’ s s t at e m e nti n By n u m i s n o tc o mp e l l e d by ou rp r i o rc a s e l a w. T h e Bynum courtci t ed to W hi t ak er v. Har v e l l

- Ki l go r e Cor

p. i n su p p ort of i ts 17
s t at e m e ntt hata c o nt r ac t o rm us tb e a n a ge nto f t he g o ve r nm e ntb e f

o r e i nvo ki ng i t s i m m uni t y. I n W h it a k e r , w e h e l d t hata m anufac t ur e ro f g r e nad e s a nd a 18
m an u fact u rer of

f u ses w ere no t a g en t s of t h e governm en tan d theref ore not e n t i t l e d t o i mmu n i t y a f t e ra g r e n a d e p r e ma t u r e l y e x p l o d e d d u r i n ga n A r my t rai n i n g e x e rc ise. Th e By n u m c o ur t ’ s r e l i anc e o n W h i t ak er to su p p ort i ts 19
u n d e rs ta n d in gof Y

earsley i s probl em ati c, how ever, becau se W h i t ak er does n ot ci t e Y earsley . A dd i t i on al l y, t h e case W h i t ak er doe s c i t e t o s upporti t s hol di ng, 20N o. 07- 30272

3 3 9U .S
. 4 9 7( 1 9 5 0). 21 48 7 U .S. 50 0, 5 12 (198 8) (e stab lishing a thre e-pron g analy sis to determine the 22 li ab ilityo f govern me nt co ntr a ct or s inth e co nte xt of military -e quip me nt manufacturin g). Yearsleyv. W

.A. Ross C

onst r. C o. , 30 9 U .S. 18 , 21 (19 40) (“Whe re an agent or officer 23 of th e Govern me nt purp ortin gt o a cto nitsb eh alf
. . . .”(em ph a si s a dd ed)) ; id
. at 22 (“[T]h ere isno gro u n d fo r h ol din gits agen t li ab le
. . . . The action of th e agent is ‘the act of th e governm ent. ’” ( em phas is ad d e d) (qu oti ng United States v. Lynah , 1 8 8U .S
. 4 4 5 , 4 6 5( 1 9 0 3), overru led in p art on ot her gro unds by United States v. Ch icago, M., St. P. & P.R. Co. , 31 2 U .S. 5 9 2 ( 1 9 4 1 )) ).

Id
. at23(“[T]hereis no cont ention, or b asis for o ne, that if th e cont ractor was acting 24 forthe Go vernm ent in p ros ecut ing i ts w orkin aid of navigati on wi thou t the tak ing of pr ope rty, the cont ractor wo uldb e subj ect toth e a sse rt edliab ility .”(em ph a si s a dd ed))
.

I d
. at 2 2 (“[I]te xclu de s liab ilityo f th e Govern me nt’ s represen tat iveslawfullyacting 25 onitsb eh alf

. . . . ” (e mp h a si s a dd ed))
. 14 Pow el lv. Un i t ed S t ate s Cart ri dge Co. , i s a Fai rLaborSt andards A c tc as e t hat 21 l i ke w i s e do e s no tc i t e Y ea rs ley
. M o s ti m po r t ant l y, b o t h By n u m and W h i t ak er ad dressed m i l i t ary- contract or produ ctl i abil i t y an d n otpu bl i c- w orks contr act or l i ab i l i t y as i n Y

earsley . The appl i c at i on o f t he c ont r ac t ordefens e i n t he c ont ext of m i l i t ary- equ i pm en tm an u fact u rers i s an area of l aw t h at h a s since been
a r g u a b ly d is tin g u is h e d fr o m th e g e n e r a l Y earsley defens e i n B oyl e v. Un i t ed Te c hno l ogi e s Cor

p. and i t s pro geny. 22 The Supr e m e Cour t ’ s de c i s i o n i n Y earsley do e s notre qui r e a pub l i c - w o r ks
c o n t r a c t o r d e fe n d a n t t o e s t a b l i s h a t r a d i t i o n a l a g e n c y r e l a t i o n s h i p wi t h t he g o v e r n m e n t. Y

earsley does use t h e w o rd “ agen t ” bu tal so uses “ contract or” 23 24 and “ r e pr e s e nt at i ve . ” M o s t no t ab l y, t h e Y ea rsl ey c o ur tdi d no te xa m i ne t he 25
r e l a t i o ns hi p b e t w e e n t he c o nt r ac t o rde fe nda nta nd t he g o ve r nm e ntt o de t e r m i ne w he t he rt he co nt r ac t o rdef e nda ntw as i n fac ta c t i ng as a n a ge nto rw he t he rt he contract or act ed w i t h i n t h e sc ope of an y agen cy rel ati on shi p. I n st ead , t h e court
m e r e l y no t e d t hats e t t i ng as i de t he pl ai nt i f fs ’t ak i ngs c l ai m , “ t he r e i s no c o nt e nt i o n, o r ba s i s f o r o ne , t hati f

t he c o nt r ac t o rw as a c t i ng f o rt he G o ve r nm e ntN o. 07- 30272

Id
. at23
. 26 See, e.g. , Myers v. Un ited States , 323 F.2d580, 583 (9 t hC i r . 1 9 6 3 ) (cit ing Yearsley 27 and concluding , without discussin g agency , th at the gove rnment co ntractor coul d not b e h eld li ab le); G ulf Ref. C

o. v. Mark C. Walker &Son Co. , 1 2 4F
. 2 d4 2 0 , 4 2 5( 6 thC ir . 1 942 ) (consi derin g the liabilityof a contr acto r whobuilt levees thatallegedlycaused damages toth e plai ntif f and ci ting Yearsley , a mongoth er c ases and without di scussin g agency , for the propositionth at “a contracto r orsub contracto r do ing work fo r th e governme nt in acco rdance wi th its requir em ents is not liab le to a thir d per so n for it s inc ide ntal ef fec t uponhis pr ope rty, and that th ere is no pr esumptio n of n egligence”) ; DolphinGardens, I nc. v. Un ited

States , 24 3 F
. Supp . 8 2 4 , 8 2 7(D. C onn . 1 9 6 5) (qu otin ga gencyl a n gu a ge from Yearsleybut not analyz ing the relation ship betwee n the contracto r and the gove rnment todeterminewhether an agency re lation shipe xis te d a n d grantin gsum maryj u dgme nt inf avoro f th e de fe n dant dr ed ger). Bu t cf. McMaho n v. Preside nt ial Airways, In c. , 502 F.3d 13 31, 13 43 (11 th Cir . 2007) (con sidering a c ontr acto r’s cl aim of de riv ative soverei gnimmu nityu nder Feres v. United States , 34 0 U .S. 135 (195 0), for da mage s cla im ed by so ldi ers ki lled in an airp lane crash andciting Yearsley and W h i tak e r v . H

a r v e l l

-K i l gore Cor p. for the propositionth at if de riv ative soverei gnimmu nity does exi st, “th e entity clai ming the immunity must at a b are mini mum h ave b eena common law a gent of

th e govern me nt at th e ti meo f th e co n ductu n de rlyin gth e lawsuit”)
. 3 2 3F .2 d 5 8 0( 9 thC ir
. 1 9 6 3). 28 I d
. at 581
. 29 I d
. at 583 (c itin g Yearsley , 3 0 9U .S
. 1 8). 30 15 i n pr o s e c ut i ng i t s w o r k i n a i d o f na vi ga t i o n wi t ho utt he t ak i ng o f pr o pe r t y, t he c o n tr a c to rw o u ld b e s u b je c t t o th e a s s e r te d lia b ility .” 26 O t herc our t s a p p l yi ng Y earsley h ave l i kew i se not di scussed an agen cy r e qui r e m e nt . Fo re xa m pl e , i n M y er s v. Un i t ed S t ate s , th e N in th C ir c u it 27 28 af f i r m ed a j udgm entt hat a pr i vat e de fendant w ho had c ons t r uct ed a r oad pu rsuan tt o a contr actw i t h t h e B u reau of P u bl i c R oad s w as not l i able f or al l eged
w as t e and t r es pass res ul t i ng f r om t he c ons t r uct i on. Ci t i ng Y earsley , t h e court 29 not ed, “ To t he e xt entt hat t he w or k per f or m ed by[ t he c ont r ac t ordef endant ] w as d on e u n d er it s con tract w i th th e B u rea u of P u b l i c L a n d s, a n d i n con form i ty w i th t h e t erm s of

sai d contract , no l i abil i t y can be i m posed up on i tf or any dam ages cl ai m ed t o h ave been s u f fered by t h e ap pel l an t s. ” T h e court di d n o t di scuss 30
w he t he rt he c o nt r ac t o rde fe nda ntw as t he g o ve r nm e nt ’ s a ge nto rw he t he rt he d efen d a n t exce ed ed the scop e of an ag en cy relati on sh i p . Asu b seq u en t N i n thN o. 07- 30272

SeeA gre dano v. U

.S
. Cu stom s Serv. , 223 F. App ’x 558, 558 (9 th Cir. 2007) (“ [A] 31 company contractingwithth e fe deralgovernme nt cannot be hel d li abl e fo ri nj ur ie s third parti es incur a s a result of the contract’ s execu t io n, wh ere the contract is l egal and the com pany do esnot breac h the ter ms of the co ntr act .” (cit ing Meyers , 3 2 3F .2 d at 5 8 3))
.

See Boy le v. United Techs. C orp , 4 8 7U .S
. 5 0 0 , 5 0 6( 1 9 8 8). 32 Yearsley , 30 9 U .S. at21
. 33 16 C i r c ui topi ni on c i t i ng Meyer s h as l i ke w i s e a ppl i e d t hi s r ul e w i t ho uta ny di s c us s i o n o f

a n a ge nc y r e l at i o ns hi p. 31 The Supr e m e Cour tha s no ta br o ga t e d o rovert ur ne d Y earsley , a nd t he Cour t ’ s m o s t r e c e nt r e fe r e nc e t o t hat de c i s i o n w as a fav o r ab l e c i t at i o n i n B oy le
. 32 T h e fac ts o f Y

earsley are qu i t e si m i l ar t o t h e fact s i n t h i s c ase. B ot h cases i n vol ve pu bl i c- w orks proj ect s. I n bo th cases , t h e act i on s c au si n g t h e al l eged h arm w ere t ak en pu rsuan tt o contr act s w i t h t h e federal governm en tt h at w ere fo rth e p u r p o s e o f fu r th e r in gp r oj e c t s a u t h o r iz e d b y a c ts o f C o n g r e s s . A n d in both cases, t h e pl ai n t i f fs di d n otal l ege t h at t h e contract or defenda n t“ exceeded hi s aut hor i t y o rthati tw as n otval i dl y c onfer r ed. ” The Pl ai nt i f fs do notal l ege 33 t h at C on gress l acks t h e au t h ori t y t o dev el op or m ai n t ai n t h e M R G O
. Fu rt h er, t he i rc o m pl ai nt s l e av e no do ubtt hatt he Cont r ac t o rD e fe nda nt s w e r e e xe c ut i ng C ongr es s’ s w i l l in d redgi ng t he M R G O
. The Pl ai nt i f fs ac know l edge t hat C on gress i n i t i al l y ap proved t h e M R G O an d that t h e U
. S
. A rm y C orps of E ngi neer s c ons t r uct ed t he pr oj ec t . Th e Pl ai nt i f fs f urt heral l ege t hat t he f ede r al go ve r nm e ntpa ys t he Cont r ac t o rD e fe nda nt s t o dr e dg e t he M RG O ye ar l y. The P la in tiffs d o n o t, h o w e v e r , a lle g e th a t t h e C o n tr a c to rD e fe n d a n ts e x c e e d e d th e ir au t h ori t y or i n an y w ay d evi ated f rom C on gress’ s di rect i on or exp ect ati on s. Inst ead , t h e P l ai n t i f

fs’al l egati on s at t ack the en t i re M R G O pr oj e c t . Fo re xa m pl e, t h e P la in t if

fs a ll e g e th a t “ t h e p r oje c t ” h a s “ d r a m a t ic a ll y in c r e a s e d th e r e g io n ’s
v u l n e r a b i l i t y t o h u r r i c a n e s a n d t r o p i c a ls t o r ms ” a n d t h a tt h e “ M RG O h a s . . . c r e a t e d a n e n v ir o n m e n t a l d is a s t e r .” T h e s e a ll e g a t io n s a t t a c k C o n g r e s s ’sN o. 07- 30272

Byn um v. FMC

C orp. , 7 7 0F .2 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 4( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 8 5). 34 See Por tis v. F

olk Const r. C

o. , 6 9 4F .2 d 5 2 0 , 5 2 4( 8 thC ir
. 1 9 8 2 ). 35 See, e.g. , Un ited States ex re l. Al i v. Dan ie l, Ma n n, J oh nso n&Me n den h al l , 35 5 F .3d 36 1 1 4 0 , 1 1 4 6( 9 thC ir
. 2 0 0 4) (u sin g“ govern me nt co ntr a ct ord ef en se”)
. See F ED . R. C IV . P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it l acks subje ct- 37 matt erj uri sdiction , th e co urtmu stdis mi ss th e a ctio n .”); Arbau ghv. Y &H C orp. , 54 6 U .S. 50 0, 514(20 06) (“[W]he n a fe d er al court co ncludes that it l acks subje ct-matte r j uri sdictio n, the co urtmu stdis mi ss the co mp laint initse ntire ty .”); Bod in v. Vagsh enian , 46 2 F .3d 4 81, 484 (5 th C ir
. 2 0 0 6) (“ [S over ei gn] im mu nity de prives fe de ral co urt s of subj ect matt erj uri sdiction .” (c itin g Ch apa v. U.S. Dep’t of J ust ice , 3 3 9F .3 d 3 8 8 , 3 8 9( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 3))
.

17 pol i cy of cr eati n g an d m ai n t ai n i n g t h e M R G O , n ot an y separate actof neg l i gen ce by the C on t ract or D efen da n t s. T h e a p p li ca b il ityof Y earsley i s est abli shed on t h e face of t h e P lai n t i f fs’
c o m p la in t, a n d a c c o r d in g ly , w e h o ld th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e r rin di s m i s s i ng t he a c t i o n. III P la in tiffs a ls o co n te n d th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t s h o u ld h a v e d is m is s e d th e ir
c l ai m s a ga i ns tt he Contr ac t o rD e fe nda nt s w i t ho utpr ej udi c e , a r gui ng t hatt he Y earsley de fe ns e i s j ur i s di c t i o nali n na t ur e . Thi s c o ur t ’ s o pi n i on i n Bynum ac know l edge s t hat “t he bas i s of t he c ont r ac t or ’ s def

ens e i s notal t oge t herc l ear f rom the textof

t h e [ Y earsley ] o pi ni o n” and s ugg e s t s t hatt he b as i s f o rdi s m i s s i ng a Y earsley cl ai m w ou l d be soverei gn i m m u n i t y. F u rt h er, t h e doct ri n e ha s been 34
r e fe r red t o a s t he “ s har e d i m m uni t y do c t r i ne ” a m o ng o t he rna m e s . I f t he 35 36 bas i s f ordi sm i ss i ng a Ye ar s l ey cl ai m i s s o ve r e i gn i m m uni t y, t he n a Y earsley def

ens e w oul d be j uri sdi c t i onal: sove r ei gn i m m uni t y de prives fede r al courts of

j u ri sdi ct i on t o hea r cl ai m s, a n d a court f i n di n g t h at a part y i s enti t l ed t o soverei gn i m m u n i t y m u stdi sm i ss t h e a ctio n f or l ack of

subj ect
- m att er j ur i s di c t i o n. 37 H o w e ve r , t he Cour t ’ s o pi ni o n i n Y earsley i tself

cou n ten a n ces a ga i n s t i tsN o. 07- 30272

C f. Al i , 35 5 F.3d at 114 7 (“ However , th e governme nt contracto r de fense does not 38 conf er so verei gn imm unity on cont rac tor s. ” (c itin g Boy le , 4 8 7U .S
. at 5 0 5n .1 ))
. Yearsleyv. W

.A. Ross C

onst r. C o. , 3 0 9U .S
. 1 8 , 2 3( 1 9 4 0). 39 See Mullins v. Test America, I

nc. , 56 4 F .3d 3 86, 407 n.9 (5 th Cir. 2 009) (“[The 40 a pp ellant’ s] in a de qu ateb ri ef in gwaivesthisc laim .”). See Brig gs v. Mississippi , 3 3 1 F .3 d 4 9 9 , 5 0 8( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 3). 41 18 a p p l i c a t i o n t o d e p r i v e t h e f e d e r a lc o u r t s o f

ju r i s d ic tio n . Yearsl ey does n otdi scuss soverei gn i m m u n i t y or ot h erw i se add ress t h e court ’ s pow er to hea r t h e case. 38 I ns t e ad , t he Cour ta f f i r m e d t he r e ve r s alo f t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s j udg m e nto n t he gr o unds a nnounce d i n Y earsley . B a s e d o n th e S u p r e m e C o u r t’s a c tio n s in

39 Y earsley , w e ho l d t hat c onc l udi ng Y earsley i s app l i cabl e does not den y t h e court o f s ubj e c t
- m at t e rj ur i s di c t i o n. Fur t he r , a s t he Pl ai nt i f fs ha ve no tpr e s e nt e d a ny a r g u me n t s r e g a r d i n gw h e t h e r t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d b y d i s mi s s i n gt h e i rc l a i ms w i t h prej u di ce i f

t h e Y earsley def

ens e i s notj uri sdi c t i onali n nat ure , t hey have
w aive d anyer r o ron t hi s i s s ue . Thus , t he di s t r i c tc o ur tpr o pe r l y di s m i s s e d t he 40 P l ai n t i f fs’cl ai m s w i t h prej u di ce. IV T h e P l a i n ti ffs also a p p ea lthe d istri ct cou rt’ s d en i a lof th eir m oti on to a m en d the i r com p l a i n ts. W e rev i ew th e d i stri ct cou rt’ s d en i a lof a m oti on to am end f or abuse of di sc r et i on. Th e Pl ai nt i f fs, i n an appare nt at t em pt t o pl ead 41
ar o und Y

earsley , s o ugh tl e ave to am e nd t he c o m pl ai ntt o a dd t he f o l l o w i ng al l e ga t i o n: D ef

endant s fai l ed t o f

ol l ow r equi r em ent s o f 3 3 C FR Part s 335- 38 , pa r t i c ul ar l y 33 CF R 3 36
. 1( c ) ( 4) a nd 3 3 CF R 320
. 4(b) a nd Exe c ut i ve O r de rN o . 11 99 0 m ad e ap pl i c ab l e t he r e by
. The D r e dg i ng D e fe n d a n t s d e v i a t e d f r o m a n d / o rfa i l e d t o e x e c u t e t h e i rd r e d g i ng act i vi t i e s i n t he m anne rr e qui r e d b y t he Ar m y Cor ps o f Engi ne e rs and by the N at i onw i de Per m i t s, s pec i f i c per m i t s, orge ner al aut ho r i z at i o n s f

o rd r e dg i ng i s s ue d b y o ro bt ai ne d b y t he Ar m y Cor ps of E n gi n eers pu rsuan tt o 33 C F R §§ 337. 5 an d 33 8. 2. Fu rt h erm ore,N o. 07- 30272

F in
. Ac q u is it io nP

ar t n ers LP

v . B lack wel l , 4 4 0F .3 d 2 7 8 , 2 9 1 ( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 6). 42 Pan -Is lamic Trade C orp. v. Exxon Cor

p. , 63 2 F .2d5 39, 54 6 (5 th Cir. 1 980) (citing 43 DeLoachv. W

ood ley , 405 F.2 d 49 6 (5 th Cir. 1 969) an d Byrne v. Kysar , 34 7 F .2d 7 34 (7thC ir. 1 9 6 5)) , abrogate d on ot her gro unds , Todorov v. DCH H e a l th care Aut h. , 92 1 F .2d 1 438 , 14 51 n .1 9( 1 1 thC ir
. 1 9 9 1 ).

Bel l At la n t icC

or p. v . Tw om b ly , 1 2 7S
. C t. 1 9 5 5 , 1 9 6 5(2 0 0 7). 44 I d
. at 1 9 6 4 -6 5(inte rn al qu ot ation mark s o mitt ed) (s ec on d alt er ationino ri gin al) ; see 45 also Fernandez-Montes v. Allied Pilots Ass’ n , 987 F.2d 27 8, 2 84 (5thC ir. 1 993) (“[C ]onclusory all egatio ns o r l egal conclusions masqu eradingas factu al conclusions will not sufficeto prevent amo tiont o di smi ss. ”)
.

C f. T wo mb ly , 12 7 S . C t. at 1 970n .10 (“Whe reas the model form a ll eges th at the 46 defen dantstruck the plaintiff with his car while plaintiff was cro ssinga particul ar highway at a spe cifie d date and time, the complaint herefurnish es no clue as tow hich of th e fo ur IL EC s (muchle ss whichof their employees) supposedlyagreed, or wh en and where the illicit agreement to ok place. . . . [A] defen dantseekingto respon d to pl aintiffs’ c onclusory all egation s . . . wo uldh ave littlei de awh er e tob egin .”). 19 a ll d e fe n d a n ts fa ile d to fo llo w S ta te r e q u ir e m e n ts (m a d e a p p lic a b le by3 3 CF R 33 7. 2) i nc l udi ng t ho s e c o nt ai ne d i n Chapt e r7 , Se c t i o ns 7 0 1 and 707 of t he Loui si ana A dm i ni st r at i ve C ode r el at ed to dredg i n g act i vi t i es. W hi l e t he r e i s a st r o ng pr e s um pt i o n i n fav o rof gr ant i ng l e av e t o a m e nd, 42
a d is tr ic t c o u r t m a y re fu s e le a v e to a m e n d if th e c o m p l a i n t a s a m e n d e d w o u ld be subj ec tto di sm i ss al
. T he Pl ai nt i f fs’pr opo se d am ended c om pl ai nt w oul d be 43 sub j ectt o di sm i ssalbecau se i tw ou l d n o t s ta te a cl ai m f or r el i ef
. To stat e a c l ai m , t he Pl ai nt i f

fs n eed no ti nc l ude de t ai l e d fac t uala l l e ga t i o ns , b utt he

“ [ f ] ac t uala l l e ga t i o ns m us tb e e no ugh t o r ai s e a r i ghtt o r e l i e f a bo ve t he speculat i ve l evel
. ” T h e P l ai n t i f fs’“obl i gati on to p rovi de t h e groun ds of [ t h ei r] 44
e n tit le [m e n t] t o re lie f r e q u ir e s m o r e th a n la b e ls a n d co n c lu s ion s, an da form u l a ic reci t ati on of

the el em en t s of

a cause of

act i on w i l lnot do. ” H ere, t h e P l ai n t i f fs’ 45 pr o f fe r e d a m e n d m e n td o e s n o tg o b e y o n d t h e c o n c l u s o r y a l l e g a t i o n t h a tt he Cont r ac t o rD e fe nda n t s a c t iv i t i e s s o m e h o w v i o l at e d v ar i o us l aws and r e gul at i o ns at s om e u n speci f

i ed t i m e a n d p l ace. O t h er al l egati on s i n t h e com pl ai n tdo n ot 46N o. 07- 30272

SeeA lp ine Vi ew C

o. v . At las C

op coAB , 2 0 5F .3 d 2 0 8 , 2 2 0( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 0). 47 Doe v. MySpace, I

nc. , 5 2 8F .3 d 4 1 3 , 4 1 8( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 8). 48 Ferrer v. Ch evronC

orp. , 4 8 4 F .3 d 7 7 6 , 7 8 2 ( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 7); seea ls o Sw . Bel l Tel ., LP 49 v. Cityof Houston , 52 9 F.3d 25 7, 263(5th Cir. 20 08) (“AT &T maintain s . . . it was entitle d to discoveryprior to the district court’s dismissal-rulin g. To th e co ntrary, when deciding , un der Rule 12(b)(6), whe therto dismiss . . . the court consi ders, of cour se, only the all egatio ns in the co mp laint. ”)
. 20 pro vi de t he addi t i onals upportnee ded be c ause , as di sc uss ed ab ove , t he fac t ual al l egat i ons i n t he rem ai nderof the or i gi nalc om pl ai nt go t o t he al l ege d dam age f rom t h e exi st en ce and st ate of t h e M R G O , not t h e C on t ractor D efen da n t s’ act i vi t i es i n m ai n t ai n i n g i t . Th e P l ai n t i f fs c an n otrel y sol el y on t h ese c on cl u sory al l e ga t i o ns a nd l e ga lc o nc l us i o ns t o a vo i d Ye ars l ey . A cco r di ngl y, w e ho l d t hat th e d istr ict co u rt d id n o t a b u se its d iscr e tion in re fu sin gto a ll o w th e P la in tiffs t o am en d thei r c om pl ai n t s. V T h e P l a i n ti ffs also a p p ea lthe distri ct cou rt’ s d en i a lof th eir r e q u e s t t o c onductdi sc ove r y. The Pl ai n ti f fs c l ai m t hat t he di st r i c tc our ts houl d have al l ow ed d i scovery so tha tthey cou l d obtai n t h e contr act s bet w een t h e C on t ract or D e fe nda nt s a nd t he g o ve r nm e ntt o de t e r m i ne t he r e l at i o ns hi p b e t w e e n t he govern m en tan d the C on t ract or D efen da n t s and t o i den t i f y t h e C on t ract or D efen da n t s’obl i gati on s un der t h e contr act s. W e r e vi e w a di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s de ni al o f di s c o ve r y f o r ab us e o f

di scr e t i o n. 47 T h e di st ri ctcourtgran t ed the C on t ract or D efen da n ts’m ot i on f or j u dg m en ton t h e pl ead i n gs pri or t o di scovery. “Am ot i on f or j u dg m en ton the pl ead i n gs un der R u le 1 2 (c ) is s u b je c t t o th e s a m e s ta n d a r d a s a m o tio n to d i s m is s u n d e rR u le 12 (b) ( 6)
. ” Thus , t he “ i nqui r y f o c us e s o n t he a l l e ga t i o ns i n t he pl e ad i ngs ” a nd 48
no to n w he t he r t he “ pl ai nt i f f ac t ual l y has s uf

f i c i e nt e vi de nc e t o s uc c e e d o n t he
m e r i t s . ” Bec aus e t he c o ur ti s d i r e c t e d t o l o o k s o l e l y att he a l l e ga t i o ns o n t he

49 fac e o f t he pl e ad i ngs , di s c o ve r y w o ul d no ta s s i s tt he Pl ai nt i f fs i n de fe ndi ng t heN o. 07- 30272

46U.S.C . § 305 11. 50 See Inre Por t Arth ur Towing C o. , 4 2 F .3 d 3 1 2 , 3 1 5( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 5). 51 Id
. at31 6. 52 Se eSh a

f e rv . A r my&A i rF

o rc eE xc h
. Ser v. , 3 76F .3d 3 86, 393(5th Cir. 2 004) 53 (“Althou ghas a gen eralmatter, the failure to comply with formalpro cedur al requirements is not alway s groun ds for reversin g a ju dgment, in this case the failure substantiallypreju diced on e of th e partie s.”). 21 1 2 (c) m oti on . A c cord i n gly, w e h old th a t t h e d i stri ct cou rt did n ot ab u se it s d i scre ti on i n de n yin g th e P l a i n ti ffs’req u est. VI Fi nal l y, t he Pl ai nt i f

fs c o nt e nd t hatt he di s t r i c tco ur ter r e d i n di s m i s s i ng th e cla im s a g a in s t t h e L im ita tio n D e fe n d a n ts w ith o u t fir s t lift in gth e a u to m a tic st ay i m posed by the l i m i t ati on act i on s. W h en a shi pow n er f i l es a peti t i on un der t h e L i m i t ati on of

L i abil i t y A ct , al lot h er s u i t s again st th e sh i pow n er are 50
au t om ati cal l y sta y e d, an d allcl ai m s s h ou l d be l i t i gated i n t h e l i m i t ati on p r o c e e d in g . B u t if a p la in tiff m a k e s ce r ta in s tip u la tio n s , in c lu d in gth a t h e w ill 51
no tenf o r c e any j udg m e ntaga i ns tt he shi po w ne runt i lt he co ur thas rul e d o n t he l i m i t at i on pet i t i on, t he cour tpres i di ng ove rt he l i m i t at i on ac t i on m ay s t ay t hat ac t i on and al l ow t he m er i t s ac t i ons t o pr oc ee d. The Pl ai nt i f fs m ove d f

ora s t ay 52
o f t he l i m i t at i o n a c t i o ns , b utt he di s t r i c tc o urt de ni e d t he Pl ai nt i f fs ’m o t i o n. T h eref ore, t h e st ay r em ai n ed i n pl ace w i t h regard t o t h e L i m i t ati on D efen da n t s, an d the d istr ict courterr ed i n enteri n g j u dg m en ti n favor of t h e L i m i t ati on D e fe nda nt s i n t he m e r i t s a c t i o n. Adistri ct cou rt’ s fa i l u re to c om p l y w i th f orm a lpr oce d u ra lreq u i rem en ts i s a groun d f

or r eversi n g a j u dg m en tw h en “ t h e fai l u re s u bstanti al l y prej u di ced
on e of t h e p a rties. ” H ere, t h e l i m i t ati on act i on s and t h e m eri t s act i on s w ere 53 be f o r e t he s am e di s t r i c tc o ur t . Bec aus e t he d i st ri c tc o ur tc o ul d c ur e t he procedu raldefectm erel y by en t eri n g a st ay i n th e l i m i t ati on act i on s and t h enN o. 07- 30272

Cf. id. at39 3-94 (notin g that th ere was sub stanti al prej udic e arisin g from th e 54 devia t io n from pro cedur al requirements be cau se th e procedural defect (1) pr evente d th e defen dantfrom electing a jury trial, (2 ) ledt he special ma ster to applyanincorre ct l egal standard, and (3) de prived th e defendant of its ri ght to obj ect to the referr al of th e matter to asp ecial ma st er). 22 e nt e r i ng j udgm e ntf o rt he Li m i t at i o n Defe nda nt s i n t he m e r i t s a c t i o n, t he P l ai n t i f fs w ou l d be i n t h e sam e posi t i on i f t h e di st ri ctcou rtf

ol l ow ed the proper pr o c e dur e . The Pl ai nt i f fs ha ve no ti de nt i f

i e d a ny s ubs t ant i alpr ej udi c e a r i s i ng ou tof t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s procedural error . Th u s, w e a ffi rm t h e entry of 54 j u dg m en ti n favor of t h e L i m i t ati on D efen da n t s.

* * * B eca u se w e h old th a t t h e C on tractor D efen d a n ts are en ti tl ed to govern m en t
- contract or i m m u n i t y u n der Y earsley an d that t h e P l ai n t i f fs’ot h er c la im s a r e w it h o u tm e r it o ra r e h a r m le s s e r r o r , w e A F F I R M th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s d i sm i ssa lan d D E N Ythe m oti on to dism i ss th e a p p ea las m oo t.